The White House TV pool, the five major U.S. broadcast networks that take turns filming the president and share the footage, went back to work on Friday after going dark for several days, PBS News reported. It stalled because President Donald Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds, and the four other pool networks refused to take CNN's place.
A federal judge has temporarily ordered the three outlets' access restored. That order lasts 14 days, and the larger legal fight over the White House media ban is still ahead.
What is the White House TV pool, and why did it stop?
The pool rotates the job of shooting video of the president among five broadcasters, CNN among them, so every network can air the footage, according to PBS. When CNN was banned, the other four declined to fill in, in solidarity.
The standoff began Monday, when CNN was scheduled to cover Trump's trip to the United Nations and was kept from the assignment, according to TIME. Before Friday, CNN had not shown live video of Trump for several days, PBS reported, and the pause stretched into Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to Washington.
Some publications, including the New York Times and Washington Post, said they would hold off on publishing or distributing still photos from White House pool coverage, TIME reported. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC also issued a rare joint statement: "The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No Administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting."
Maria Ressa, the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO, called the ban unconstitutional and praised that solidarity, telling Democracy Now! that "there are costs to standing up, but there are greater costs to giving up."
Why did Trump ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico?
Trump announced the ban in a Truth Social post on Sept. 18, citing the outlets' reporting, which he called fake news, Truthout reported. In a later post, he said their reporting threatened national security.
The Justice Department defended the ban in a Tuesday filing, arguing that White House access is a privilege rather than a right and that the president may set minimum standards for bona fide journalists and guard national security information. It also said the outlets had adequate notice and that the ban is lawful under the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly later disputed the notice claim, TIME reported.
The filing faulted the outlets for leaning on anonymous sources. It pointed to CNN reporting on a bunker beneath Trump's planned East Wing ballroom, MS NOW reporting on a White House leak investigation and Politico reporting on Secret Service money spent on ballroom security upgrades.
Ryan Goodman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, called that reporting core protected speech and noted that one example came from a document published in the Federal Register, according to Truthout.
At the UN on Tuesday, Trump told CNN's Kaitlan Collins she should not be there covering him. "The United Nations allowed us in, sir," Collins replied, Truthout reported. That night, Trump attacked her on Truth Social.
The ban is unpopular. In an Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday, 32% of respondents approved of it and 58% disapproved, including 49% who strongly disapproved, after being shown Trump's announcement post, Truthout reported.
What did Judge Timothy Kelly rule on the White House media ban?
The three outlets sued Monday, arguing that the ban attacks the First Amendment and violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process, the guarantee of fair procedures before the government takes something away. On Wednesday, 49 media organizations filed a brief backing them, arguing that stripping outlets' rights over editorial viewpoint defies decades of Supreme Court precedent.
Early Thursday, Kelly issued a 14-day temporary restraining order, a short-term emergency order, directing that the outlets' access be restored. He wrote that they had "shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim," TIME reported. In plain terms, their hard passes, the credentials that let reporters onto the grounds, were likely revoked without fair procedures.
Kelly rejected the national security justification. "Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the WhiteHouse—instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting," he wrote, according to TIME.
The First Amendment claim has not been decided, and the ruling did not directly address the pool.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
Before the ruling, Trump dismissed the lawsuit and said he regretted appointing Kelly in 2017. "Almost without question and, as usual, we’ll go for appeal," Trump said, TIME reported. Kelly wrote that temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable.
Ted Boutrous, the outlets' lawyer, told TIME that "this is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law."
Were the banned reporters let back into the White House?
Yes, after a chaotic Thursday morning, TIME reported. In an emergency request for a hearing, CNN, MS NOW and Politico said their journalists "attempted to enter the White House and were turned away" and that Secret Service agents confiscated more hard passes. Kelly gave the administration until 12:30 p.m. ET to respond.
The White House told the court it began reinstating badges at 7:25 a.m. ET. No ruling on the outlets' allegation has been reported.
Even with reporters from all three outlets back inside, the networks kept sitting out pool coverage on Thursday, PBS reported. The pool returned Friday: at noon, CNN aired pool video of Trump and Xi touring the National Archives with Melania Trump and Peng Liyuan.
CNN made no direct comment, but its media analyst Brian Stelter posted on X that CNN had a pool assignment at the event and that the White House had approved its credentials, according to PBS.
What happens next in the White House press ban case?
During the 14 days, the court will set expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction, a longer-lasting order, TIME reported. Once the injunction is granted or denied, the temporary order would lapse and the losing side could appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the federal appeals court in Washington, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told TIME.
Trump could instead seek emergency relief, according to experts cited by TIME, though Volokh said that route is usually harder.
Volokh said D.C. Circuit precedent bars excluding reporters over viewpoint or pulling passes without due process, so an administration appeal there would likely fail. "The government can't exclude reporters based on viewpoint, and cannot take away a press pass without due process," he told TIME.
That precedent figured in the fight over Trump's 2018 revocation of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's credentials. Volokh said it applies to areas usually open to the press, such as the briefing room.
The Supreme Court could see it differently, Volokh said, and take the view that the government can choose who comes onto its property. "Generally speaking, the First Amendment does not secure a right of access to government office buildings," he said.